[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
First comment is that exd4 was probably not that good a move. The standard play there would more likely be ...d6, as the exchange and then subsequent exchange on d8 is fine for black as in other similar positions.

[/ QUOTE ]

exd4 is extremely standard, I can assure you.

I don't have Chessbase but I have Googlebase. The search string "1. c4 e5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 c6 4. d4 exd4" gets 110 hits compared to 4 for the same string with ... d6. There are 174 hits total for the string up to White's 4th move, so ... exd4 is the response of well over half of players.

The problem with d6 imo is that White has no reason to exchange. He can just leave the d6 pawn there looking useless and clogging up Black's position, cutting off the dark squared bishop (although it's true it could be fianchettoed).

btw, does anyone have Chessbase and are we allowed to use it?

[ QUOTE ]
2) Plans involving ...d6: in such cases, you are planning to try to just stay compact, and develop with d6, g6, Bg7, 0-0, and then elect whether to play for d5 or b5 as the position warrants. This is likely to lead to a more complex game where both sides have a variety of options on how to approach the position.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't like this plan because the pawn will be weak on d6. Note for instance that if you imagine we fianchetto the dark square bishop and play Nbd7, the pawn is not defended at all. Meanwhile White has dominance of the light squares, so d5 will be difficult after Nc3 and maybe e4 at some point. Then White can put a rook on d1 and a bishop on f4 and the d6 pawn will be a weakness that we have to defend all game.

We should play d5 immediately while we still can. The isolated d-pawn will be OK, we'll be playing a similar position to a Tarrasch Defense against the QGD.